Q&A: Prohibitions of Benefit
Prohibitions of Benefit
Question
According to the Rashba (responsa, part 1, siman 615, in the middle), who holds that items from which benefit is prohibited are not owned by their “owner,” but are considered ownerless, must we then say that in his view ownership is not a Platonist concept (that there is some metaphysical bond between the owner and his object), but rather is only a term for the owner’s right to use his object—so that when he does not have this right, as in the case of prohibitions of benefit, he is no longer the owner?
Answer
It seems to me that I commented on this in the article. According to the view that they are indeed a person’s property, there is no proof, because the prohibition is like a lion crouching upon it, but there are still legal rights of use (it is just forbidden to use them). But according to the Rashba’s view, there is seemingly proof in the opposite direction. Even so, one could argue that he did not infer the lack of ownership from the prohibition on use, but simply understood that this is the law in this case.
This reminds me of another Rashba that I brought in one of my columns, where he wrote that a person may save himself with another person’s money, because there is no theft here, since the owner of the money would also have been obligated to do so. Here too, he does not distinguish between a legal right and a prohibitory obligation. This requires further investigation.